Archive for the ‘dmv representation’ Category
dmv waives car dealer renewal penalties for january 2010 due to a computer glitch no comments
January Dealer Renewal Notices
New Information
January 2010 dealer renewal notifications were not issued.
The error has been identified and corrected.
Renewal notifications will be issued as soon as possible.
Penalty fees for all January dealer licenses renewals will be waived; however, dealers must still renew within the 30-day renewal grace period per California Vehicle Code (CVC) §11717(c).
License Renewal Procedures
Dealers requiring renewal must:
Visit the department’s website for licensing information at: www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/ol/dealer.htm.
Complete the Renewal Application (OL 45) form available at: www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/ol/ol45.htm.
Review the mandatory dealer education requirements in the Vehicle Industry Registration Procedures Manual available at: www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk_pdf/toc.htm.
Access dealer education providers at: www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/ol/dlr_edu_provider.htm.
Renew dealer license plates using the Application for License Plates, Stickers, Registration Card (OL 22) available at: www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/ol/ol22.htm.
Contact their local inspector prior to license renewal if they have added a branch office or changed a location, firm name, or ownership.
Mail the renewal application and accompanying forms to:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Occupational Licensing Section
PO Box 932342 MS L224
Sacramento, CA 94232-3420
Additional Information
Dealers with license plates that are lost, stolen, or need to be surrendered, must complete a Statement of Lost, Stolen, or Surrendered Special Plates (OL 247) available at: www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/ol/ol247.htm.
Dealer license renewal status is updated daily and can be verified on the department’s website at: https://mv.dmv.ca.gov/olinq2/welcome.do.
Background
Normally, courtesy dealer license renewal notices are sent in advance. Due to an error identified, January 2010 notices did not generate.
Distribution
Notification that this memo is available online at www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/olin/olin.htm
was made via e-mail alert service in January 2010 to the following:
Dealers
Contact
Questions regarding this memo may be directed to the Occupational Licensing Firms Unit, at (916) 229-3126.
MARY GARCIA, DMV Chief Occupational Licensing
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
renewal certification for car dealers with express mail delivery is $ 85.
we make it simple for you
800-901-5950
dmv penalty fee waived for january 2010 car dealer renewals
home based part time wholesale dealers can supply retail dealers with inventory 1 comment
the secret is
+
+
=
we make it simple for you
800-901-5850
automated man is not your friend
dmv wholesale car dealer applications must now be sent to sacramento 1 comment
please remember to send dmv wholesale car dealer applications direct to sacramento
Department of Motor Vehicles
Occupational Licensing Services and Support
Wholesale Dealer Application Package
P.O. Box 932342 MS L224
Sacramento, CA 94232-3420
+++++++++++++++++++++
we make it simple for you
dealer education
800-901-5950
car dealers: good car dealer education will prepare you for a surprise visit from the dmv police 1 comment
our car dealer pre-licensing class
recently held at a local car dealership
was surprised by a visit from the dmv police
four plainclothes dmv investigators in black unmarked chrysler 300′s
arrived at this local dealership for what they described as a ” dmv spot check ”
they explained this unannounced visit to the dealership by dmv investigations staff
was part of a dmv effort to ensure compliance by local dealers to existing dmv regulations
the dmv police fanned out and inspected all of the vehicles at this small dealership
the dmv police inspected the entire location & the sales office
the dmv police requested access to the secured deal jackets in the owners office
the owner of the dealership was not present at the time of this ” dmv spot check ”
these dmv police are part of a team of 230 dmv investigation staff throughout california
they were courteous & professional, knowledgeable & willing to listen to my questions
we discussed:
the differences between dmv investigations & dmv inspectors
the buyer’s guide posting requirements from the FTC
the signage requirements and our three gotplates.com dealer office signs
the red flag rules for car dealers offering credit to buyers
the recent dmv red flags memo directing dealers to become red flag compliant
the need for posted business hours at each retail location
the car buyer bill of rights provisions
our pre-licensing dealer class was actually enhanced by this ” dmv spot check ”
the dmv police visit placed emphasis on the retail car dealer rules and the importance
of each car dealer to keep the office in order, signs posted as required & dmv paperwork secured
this local car dealership did well with its ” dmv spot check ” by dmv investigations
good dealer education is the crux of dmv rules compliance
comprehensive training and an understanding of the dmv rulebook
as it pertains to your car dealership is what we are all about
+++
our conclusion:
the ” dmv spot check ” by the dmv police for dmv rules compliance is a great idea
keep your dealership in good working order with our certified dmv dealer education
breaking dmv news…AG issues new opinion paper on conditional sales contracts for car dealers 1 comment
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opinions/pdfs/o546_08-804.pdf
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
No. 08-804
December 31, 2009
THE HONORABLE NOREEN EVANS, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question:
Is the single document requirement for automobile sales contracts satisfied if the document consists of multiple pages that are attached to each other and integrated by means such as inclusive sequential page numbering (e.g., “1 of 4,” “2 of 4,” etc.)?
CONCLUSION
The single document requirement for automobile sales contracts is satisfied if the document consists of multiple pages that are attached to each other and integrated by means such as inclusive sequential page numbering (e.g., “1 of 4,” “2 of 4,” etc.).
automated man is NOT your friend 1 comment
a well run car dealership
depends on good car dealer education
we work hard to make it simple for you
automated man twitter is not your friend
and can actually harm your seo efforts
have a look at our car dealer twitter platform
each is unique and different
and full of car dealer education content
automated man twitter systems are NOT your friend
good luck
thx
gina auto mom
800-901-5950
automated man is not your friend
twitter car dealer 3 comments
we make it simple for you
car dealer education
@autogodfather
800-901-5950
we make it simple for you + 800-901-5950
dmv announces new dealer license changes under the car buyers protection act of 2009 no comments
Occupational Licensing Industry News OLIN 2009–19 California Car Buyers’ Protection Act of 2009
New Law
Effective January 1, 2010, the California Car Buyers’ Protection Act of 2009 becomes law.
This law increases dealer, lessor-retailer, and auto broker license fees and requires a vehicle dealer to pay off the outstanding loan or lease balance on any vehicle accepted in trade within 21 calendar days.
The law further prohibits a dealer from selling, consigning for sale, or transferring a vehicle accepted in trade before the outstanding loan or lease balance has been paid.
Increases
All original and renewal dealer and lessor-retailer license fees will increase by $25. The fee to add or renew an auto broker endorsement to an existing license will increase by $50. The new fees are:
•
Dealer license, original $175
•
Dealer license, renewal $125
•
Auto Broker, original $100
•
Auto Broker, renewal $ 75
New Information
Dealers are required to pay the outstanding loan or lease balance, or other specified amount agreed upon when the vehicle acquired through purchase or in trade has a prior loan or lease balance. The dealer must pay the legal owner or lessor shown on the ownership certificate the balance or specified amount within 21 calendar days of purchasing or obtaining the vehicle in trade.
The dealer is not in violation of this section if notice of rescission of the contract is given reasonably and in good faith promptly, but no later than 21 days after the date the vehicle was purchased or obtained in trade, and the contract is thereafter rescinded on any of the grounds in Civil Code §1689.
Background
The California Car Buyers’ Protection Act of 2009 is a new law effective:
January 1, 2010.
The act increases licensing fees and imposes certain requirements when a dealer obtains a vehicle in trade with a prior loan or lease balance.
References
California Vehicle Code (CVC) §4453.5
California Civil Code §1689
Distribution
Notification that this memo is available online, at dmv.ca.gov/pubs/olin/olin.htm was made via E-Mail Alert Service in December 2009 to the following:
•
Dealers
•
Lessor-Retailers
•
Registration Services
Contact
Questions regarding this memo may be directed to the Occupational Licensing Operations Unit, at (916) 229-3126.
MARY GARCIA, DMV Chief Occupational Licensing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
we offer the best car dealer education in all of california
prices start as low as $ 100.
we make it simple for you
800-901-5950
good luck
thx
charlotte
rexhead.net
gotplates.com
redflagclass.com
autogodfather.com
ezdealerbond.com
dmv announces new standards for holding a dismantlers license 1 comment
Occupational Licensing Industry News OLIN 2009–18
Dismantler Licensing Requirements
New Legislation
Legislation effective January 1, 2010, requires the department to ensure persons applying for an auto dismantler license in California meet environmental protection and tax payment requirements.
Procedures
Applicants applying for an original auto dismantler’s license must include the following information with their application, if required by law:
•
Board of Equalization resale permit number
•
Franchise Tax Board tax identification number
•
California Environmental Protection Agency identification number
•
Storm water permit number
•
Hazardous materials business plan
NOTE: Beginning on January 1, 2011, the above requirements will also apply to dismantler renewal applications.
Background
Dismantlers store vehicles with potentially hazardous materials. This bill will increase the department’s licensing authority to confirm an applicant complies with California environmental protection requirements and tax obligations.
Distribution
Notification that this memo is available online at
dmv.ca.gov/pubs/olin/olin.htm
was made via E-mail Alert Service in November 2009 to dismantlers.
Contact
Questions regarding this memo may be directed to the Occupational Licensing Operations Unit at (916) 229-3126.
MARY GARCIA,
Chief Occupational Licensing
California DMV
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
we make it simple for you
quality car dealer education lends itself to compliance
800-901-5950
charlotte gives quality dealer education + 800-901-5950
new standards may be the death of the american car industry no comments
Kiss the American Auto Industry Goodnight
By Bill Moore
Effectively, that is what the conservative Heritage Foundation is arguing in a November 23, 2009 blog piece entitled Help Stop the EPA from Imposing More Costly Regulations. The Foundation asserts that if the EPA enacts the fuel economy standards embodied in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed by former President George W. Bush, it will mean fewer consumer choices in automobiles, more expensive vehicles, and less safe models due to the inevitable downsizing that will occur in order to comply with the 35 mpg fleet average the law will require.
They claim, “to meet these new standards, cars and trucks will need to be lighter, making them less safe. The National Academy of Sciences study pegs the cost of downsizing at 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.” They also assert that increasing fuel economy to 35 mpg will do little to reduce global warming, something I am not sure they actually believe is real, but that’s another matter. Instead, let’s examine the “smaller is deadlier” allegation.
The National Research Council published a 2002 study entitled, Effectiveness and lmpact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards in which the majority of the committee concluded, “The downweighting and downsizing [of vehicles] that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.”
Notice that the Heritage Foundation chose to cherry pick this statistic by failing to note that only “some” of the downsizing of the vehicles were the result of CAFE standards and probably resulted in those estimated fatalities. They also failed to point out the fact that the study was done using 1993 accident records. The implication of their citation is that for carmakers to comply with what the Foundation considers an Obama Administration initiative, despite originating during the Bush presidency, carmakers will be forced to build smaller, less safe vehicles.
Let’s examine that question, shall we?
When the original 2002 report came out, the committee responsible for its findings were not unanimous in their opinions as to its conclusions. A minority disagreed, stating publicly, “The conclusions of the majority of the committee … are overly simplistic and at least partially incorrect … The relationship between vehicle weight and safety are complex and not measureable with any reasonable degree of certainty at present… Reducing the weights of light-duty vehicles will neither benefit nor harm all highway users; there will be winners and losers.”
In 2008, Tom Wenzel with the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and Marc Ross with the University of Michigan presented a paper American Physical Society’s Forum on Physics and Society, essentially concurred with the minority view in that the issue of vehicle safety is far more complex than the “bigger and heavier is safer” mantra.
They contended, “Safety can be improved using new technologies, with little impact on weight or fuel economy.” Those new technologies include high-strength steel, improved crash safety design, electronic stability control, better seat belts, stronger roofs and vehicle-to-vehicle communication (crash avoidance).
The above graph, screen-captured from their March 2008 Powerpoint presentation, shows relative risk by vehicle type. What’s illuminating here is the fact that while compact and subcompact models do represent a higher risk to their occupants than more car-like Crossovers, for example, the damage inflicted on passengers in other vehicles is less. And when you compare them to the light truck/pickup category, the compact car is “safer” than any class of pickup but full-sized vans. Not only aren’t these light trucks any safer than a compact car, but the aggressive havoc they cause to other vehicles and their occupants is three to five times that of the compacts and subcompacts. Compare all vehicles classes and imported luxury cars (presumably Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Saab, etc.) come out the best, which can’t be explained by size or vehicle mass alone. Something else is going on here including vehicle engineering and driver maturity.
It seems to me that the answer isn’t allowing American carmakers to continue to build big, heavy, cheap vehicles, but to engineer safer and more fuel efficient models, and this is, in fact, what they are doing. Both Ford and GM are creating “global” vehicle platforms that they can sell in Asia, Europe and North America, offering comparable amenities and performance, instead of the wide disparity previously seen between GM and Ford’s more fuel-efficient models in Europe and their name sake-only variants in North America. Chrysler and Fiat’s recently unveiled vehicle and engine plans highlight this shift.
And if you’re wondering about how safe those Euro-ized global models are, the World Health Organization reported that in 1998 in the whole of Europe there were 106,757 traffic fatalities and 3,213,104 injuries for a comparably sized population, while in the United States and Canada there were 125,959 fatalities and 4,410,736 injuries. Recall that Europe is more congested and has higher highway speeds than in most of North America, so it should have higher fatality and injury rates, but it doesn’t.
Bottom line, smaller and lighter doesn’t have to equate to more deaths and injuries. Better engineering and materials can largely mitigate the problem; and doing so will make U.S. carmakers more competitive, not less. Or, we can blindly follow the advice of the creaky Heritage Foundation and kiss the rest of the American auto industry goodnight.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
car dealer compliance comes with good car dealer education
we make it simple for you
800-901-5950
good car dealer education is the key to dealer success
